I never abandon games, but I have pulled a stalemate a few times refusing to surrender a hopeless position. I suppose that's only slightly less disrespectful, but I insist in being beaten and not surrendering.
Abandoning instead of resigning
Sort:
djaysnider wrote:
I never abandon games, but I have pulled a stalemate a few times refusing to surrender a hopeless position. I suppose that's only slightly less disrespectful, but I insist in being beaten and not surrendering.
W for fighting till the end, but we werent talking about that
we were talking about abandoning 
My last blitz game I won by resignation, but it was when he had 1 second left. I had to sit there for a long time just to win the game.
ldcn wrote:
I've noticed that many of my opponents abandon the game when they suddenly get into a losing position (e.g. they blundered their queen). My question is what do players gain from abandoning the game instead of resigning? For me it seems that the only difference is that I have to wait a few seconds before playing the next game. If there's no benefit to abandoning the game, why not just resign? I'm going to assume that this happens less among higher rated players...
I'm new to chess.com, and ran into that situation where a player in a losing position lets the time run out. I didn't get why, I didn't even assume it had any intention.
But something I also found confusing is that I've had two games in a row where it said the player "abandoned the game" only after a few moves and the game was still very even (no blunder, nothing special). In that case I assume it is due to their internet connection, but it's impossible to know if there's another motive. Maybe they try an opening and it doesn't pan out as they expected, and they want to move on (but don't wan't to resign as to not admit it). So far I enjoy the win regardless but it's still very new to me.
ldcn wrote:
I've noticed that many of my opponents abandon the game when they suddenly get into a losing position (e.g. they blundered their queen). My question is what do players gain from abandoning the game instead of resigning? For me it seems that the only difference is that I have to wait a few seconds before playing the next game. If there's no benefit to abandoning the game, why not just resign? I'm going to assume that this happens less among higher rated players...
Resigning is defined as "accept that something undesirable cannot be avoided" (Oxford Dictionary)
Abandoning is defined as "ceas[ing] to support or look after [a chess game]" (Oxford Dictionary)
Resigning in chess is saying your opponent won.
Abandonning in (online) chess is closing the tab and "cease to look after" the game.
I encountered someone like that about two months ago. He was on the back foot but I would say not a certain loser - I was a pawn up and my pieces were in a slightly better position. He walked away from the board and let the clock tick down for 20 minutes before I finally won on time but it was all very unsportsmanlike.
Let's say I have 20 minutes on my clock playing White and I am winning.
Black has 15 minutes remaining, but abandons the game instead of resigning. It doesn't waste more time than when they discomnect on purpose, but less time. Ergo, I don't personally mind that so much as I am not sitting there waiting for the disconnect timer to time out.
Abandoning games is bad form.
BourneRoot wrote:
they do it because they are mad and want to get back at you for winning so its there way of punishing you and wasting your time because they feel their time was wasted playing chess
If "time is wasted playing chess", it begs the question why play? It's like playing asking to plau Monopoly and then get upset when you are losing and saying "time is wasted playing Monopoly." No one forces them to play (at least, not that I am aware of.)
If you agree to the 15/10 games then when you start a game you're accepting possibly spending 20+ minutes on a game. So what's the hurry if your opponent is just waiting on time. They're not always "abandoning" as they are there with you waiting on this time. Yes it's to punish, I guess. But you did agree to take that time to play the game
E
S
Jsj
Hsh
Hehr
Heheh
Heh
Yehrh
I abandon games and let the clock run out when the person is in a position to easily check mate, but chooses to push pawns instead. Game I just finished, I had king and pawn. Opponent had 3 pawns, 1 knight, 1 rook, and queen. They were positioned in such a way that I couldn't take any of their pieces, if I moved my pawn they could take it leaving me with my king. My only option was to move my king. Multiple times they pushed one of their pawns forward instead of finishing the game with one of the few very easy mates available. THAT is why I let the time run out. If you have an obvious and easy mate you should take it. Pushing pawns forward is rude.
skill issue